Allowed

Anil, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Aug 2022Crl.MC/1365/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition and quashed FIR and further proceedings against three petitioners accused under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, finding that the initial search violated mandatory statutory requirements regarding witness presence.

What did the court decide?

Quashed FIR in Crime No. 482/2014 and all further proceedings pursuant to the Final Report against the petitioners.

Anil, Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 1365 OF 2020

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 ANIL, AGED 38 YEARS S/O.BALACHANDRAN,AJI BHAVAN, NEAR MANGADU GANAPATHI TEMBLE, ENATHI MANGALAM VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶8

2 SHABNA FERNANDEZ, AGED 38 YEARS D/O,MARY FERNANDEZ, HOUSE NO.160(C),WARD-3, CONTONMENT AREA, BARNASSERI, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

3 AJIKUMAR, AGED 37 YEARS S/O.KUTTAPPAN, AYATHIL PUTHEN VEEDU, NEDUMAN MURIYIL, NEAR KALLETHU SCHOOL, EZHAMKULAM VILLEGE, ADOOR THALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. K.S.ARUN KUMAR SRI.JUSTINE JACOB

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031.

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

Crl.M.C.No. 1365 of 2020

¶14

¶15

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J

¶16

…......................................

¶17

Crl.M.C.No. 1365 of 2020

¶18

…............................................................. Dated this the 11^th day of August, 2022

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No. 482/2014 of Valiathura Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, which is now pending as C.C.No.1184/2017 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The offences alleged against the petitioners and other accused are under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

¶21

The prosecution case is that on 14.04.2014 at about 07:30 p.m., the 1^st and 2^nd accused availed a room in a hotel named Star Ruksana run by A5. A4 was the Manager of the hotel, and A3 was the person who booked room No.209 for A1 and A2. Thereafter, A1 and A2 had sexual intercourse for profit and thereby committed offences. The aforesaid crime was registered based on a search conducted by the Circle Inspector of Pollice, Valiyathura Police Station, on 14.04.2014, and they have arrested the accused persons. After completing the

¶22

Crl.M.C.No. 1365 of 2020

¶23

¶24

investigation of the case, Annexure 4 Final Report has been submitted against the petitioners therein. The petitioner filed this Crl.M.C for quashing all further proceedings in the aforesaid crime.

¶25

Heard, Sri. K.S. Arunkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. M.P.Prashanth, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

¶26

Although several contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, one of the crucial contentions is the non-compliance with Section 15(2) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. As per the aforesaid provision, while conducting a search as contemplated under Sub Section 1 of Section 15, the Special Police Officer or the trafficking police officer, as the case may be, shall call upon two or more respectable inhabitants (at least one of whom shall be a woman) of the locality, before the search is conducted. It is pointed out that no such procedure has been complied with in these proceedings. On perusal of the records, I find some force in the contention. Annexure -III mahazer shows that the inspection was conducted without the presence of the witnesses as mandated in the said provision. Therefore, the inspection which forms the very basis of the offence is conducted in violation of the

¶27

Crl.M.C.No. 1365 of 2020

¶28

¶29

statutory stipulation; hence, the entire prosecution is vitiated. It is also brought to my notice that the prosecution against accused No 4 and 5 was already quashed by this court as per order dated 21.06.2022 in Crl.M.C 1244/2022 on some other grounds. Thus, the only conclusion possible is that the prosecution against the petitioners is liable to be interfered with due to the above reason.

¶30

Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No. 482/2014 of Valiathura Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant to it, including proceedings on the Final Report submitted thereon as against the petitioners, are hereby quashed.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., JUDGE

¶33

Dxy

¶34

Crl.M.C.No. 1365 of 2020

¶35

¶36

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1365/2020

¶37

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶38

ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.482/2014 OF THE VALIATHURA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE FIS IN CRIME NO.482/2014 OF HE VALIATHURA POLICE STATION, THIRVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZER IN CRIME NO.482/2014 OF THE VALIATHURA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

Anil, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Federal Bank Limited Vs State of Kerala

Thadevus @ Shaji Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Kabeer Vs State of Kerala

Sreejith @ Girish Vs State of Kerala

T. Moideen Vs State of Kerala

Enforcement Officer, Employees Pfo. Vs M/S.Tvm Dist.Tourism Promotion Council